From the article: Few presidents have been as adept as Clinton at charming ordinary voters, but opinion polls have repeatedly indicated that much of America regards Hillary as cold, calculating, strident and ideological.

Hillary generally comes across as someone who is working hard to say the correct thing, rather than just saying it. The call for a "charisma offensive" brings to mind Al Gore's continued efforts to re-define himself. All that did was allow his opponents to brand him as a fake, rather than just boring and wooden.

There are powerful women with charisma and charm. Thatcher and Kirpatrick come to front of my mind. But, Hillary? No, she only comes to the front of my mind when thinking of shrill and humorless.

And it isn't just that I disagree with her politics. At least, I don't think it is. I've considered whether I retain a psychic residue of the Clinton years where she spent so much time defending her husband. Those types of things do tend to make one the adjectives I associate her with.

But everything I've had read about the woman from non adoring sources, including many mainstream voices, describe her as one chilly filly.

I wonder, those of you who adore her, do you really think of her as charming and engaging or do you just love her politics? I really would like to know how you perceive her personality.

Pogo: I think you have accidentally truncated her message. I should read:

"I have charisma. . .And if you don't think so you are a chauvinist misogynistic member of the right wing conspiracy."

Or at least that will be the none too subtle message of the media. Similar to how if you don't vote for a black Democrat you are a racist.

She may not have charisma, but she was able to use the Jedi Mind Trick on people over her husband's sexual adventures, at least within the context of discussing their own marriage! "These aren't the interns you're looking for!"

She may not have charisma, but she was able to use the Jedi Mind Trick on people over her husband's sexual adventures, at least within the context of discussing their own marriage! "These aren't the interns you're looking for!"

There are powerful women with charisma and charm. Thatcher and Kirpatrick come to front of my mind. But, Hillary? No, she only comes to the front of my mind when thinking of shrill and humorless.

And it isn't just that I disagree with her politics. At least, I don't think it is. I've considered whether I retain a psychic residue of the Clinton years where she spent so much time defending her husband. Those types of things do tend to make one the adjectives I associate her with.

But everything I've had read about the woman from non adoring sources, including many mainstream voices, describe her as one chilly filly.

I wonder, those of you who adore her, do you really think of her as charming and engaging or do you just love her politics? I really would like to know how you perceive her personality.

Pogo: I think you have accidentally truncated her message. I should read:

"I have charisma. . .And if you don't think so you are a chauvinist misogynistic member of the right wing conspiracy."

Or at least that will be the none too subtle message of the media. Similar to how if you don't vote for a black Democrat you are a racist.

I dunno. Making light of Hillary's lack of charisma isn't "tranparent"; what an odd complaint. No one argues that Obama lacks charisma, just experience and heft. And Hill is merely Al Gore in drag; another shrill liberal scold who thinks it takes a village and dammit she's the village, and knows what's good for us.

During Steven Covey's apogee, the 'Seven Principles' stuff became a business fad. My own workplace had us take his odd cultish course in 1999, a curious mix of Dayplanner instruction and evangelical corporate self-helpistry.

Our speaker was acolyte Blaine Lee, who told an unusual story about Bill and Hillary. He said that Covey and he had met with the Clintons, presenting the course to them just prior to their 2nd administration. One of the 'Successful Habits' was being discussed, and the issue of integrity came up. Lee gave an example of loyalty, in which a CEO refused to speak ill of someone who'd just left the room.

Apparently this genuinely puzzled the powerful couple, and the point had to be rediscussed several times, but Lee said Hillary was astonished that talking behind someone's back would be considered bad behavior.

I was still a democrat then, barely hanging onto that title. Stories like that didn't help matters.

Naked Lunch said:"Yes we all know Hillary has a ways to go to match the natural charm of the sexy McCain."

How could we create a truly neutral group to judge whether McCain or Hillary is more charming and natural and relaxed? Cause I am amazed that even highly partisan smart folks can't see someone like McCain wins hands down. And I am not singling out McCain vs. Hillary - we could pick any two of the top pols. Any behaviorists (professional) out there with suggestions?

Well, yes, but he comes with excellent intellectual qualifications (e.g. editor of the Harvard Law Review, right?) and, perhaps more important in modern America, is a Black politician whose schtick isn't all about sticking it to Whitey, unlike Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or, really, most of the most visible members of the Black Congressional Caucus. Just to take some of the more egregious examples of public racism from Black politicians in recent years, it's hard to imagine him going on about making a city a chocolate city, or (more obscurely), going on about wanting to slap Whites for his mental health.

He is, somewhat like Colin Powell, a Black politician whose political identity doesn't seem to be as a "Black" politician set in opposition or contrast against "White" politicians, but just a politician who happens to be Black. And that's tremendously appealing, I think -- to me, as much as anyone else, even if I think he's just a generic left Democrat besides -- because that's what many of us think politicians ought to be. Representatives for their constituencies, not spokesmen for their races. There's a hope, in my breast at least, that he could be the leading edge of a new generation of Black politicians who won't seek power by turning the Blacks against the Whites.

But I do agree his star is likely to fade -- he's just a junior senator, and hasn't really been tried, politically. His opponent was Alan Keyes, after all.

That woman, charisma? We all should live so long...unless we personify charisma as the scolding nanny who thinks she knows what's best for us and is eager to take our money to see her projects through.

Am I the only one who can't get to comments from the main page? There, all the comment links have archive text in them. I had to go to the actual archive in the right side bar; then, I could open comments on individual posts. Happens in Firefox and Explorer.

Because Republican voters are not so easy to con with charm and no substance.

He is the kind of guy that you wouldn't mind having a beer with, unlike the "other guy". He just seems like a good man. He prays and says that his favorite philosopher is Jesus. The "other guy" could never wear a flight suit and look cool like him.

Never has a constituency been conned by charisma and personality as Republicans were by one George W. Bush.

In the matter of a Hillary "charisma offensive", it occurs to me that while Senator Clinton may be deficient in the charisma part of the equation, when it comes to being offensive she is second to none.

I think it's amazing that we attach such importance to poll number this far from the election. When have poll numbers this far out been any kind of reflection of the actual numbers come primary and election times?

"I think it's amazing that we attach such importance to poll number this far from the election."

Susan is absolutely right about this. The next two years will require the presidential aspirants to take positions on how to change course in Iraq and how to respond to a nuclear test by Iran. There will also be unpleasant surprises elsewhere in the Middle East, economic ups and downs, natural disasters, domestic scandals, and possibly another terror attack. Any of these events could change the political landscape in ways we can't predict.

Hillary & the other contenders will have much more to be concerned about than whether or when to unleash a charisma offensive.

I wrote: "I wonder, those of you who adore her, do you really think of her as charming and engaging or do you just love her politics? I really would like to know how you perceive her personality."

While there was lots of criticism of Republicans, no one came to Hillary's defense to say that she was indeed charming, charismatic, exuded compassion, etc. Certainly telling, and I think indicative of why these primary type polls are having the results they are having.

Consider, the Dems have put forth two fairly unlikable people in a row up for President. Is it likely they will make the same mistake again?

Hibbs: Unlikeable and incompetent. Hillary is a solid political operator, and she can be likeable enough. She has a real chance. She managed to take the NY Senate seat by a wide margin, and she won't have the "carpetbagger" meme to contend with. She's also perceived as non-wimpy, which is important in the next leader we choose.

Obama is still an empty suit. He's got plenty of time to fill it, of course, but it's too early for him to run for the presidency (vice president, sure).

"Exactly. I've never been a great fan of either President Bush, but compared to the options the Democrats provided, there really was no choice."

Sure. John Kerry would have invaded, errr, Russia. During Winter!!! And he would have lost New Orleans AND Houston.

This is such a tired and stupid argument. It basically says that because the people in power go negative against the opposition (which they will always do when their performance is bad), the people in power are probably not as bad as the people not in power.

It's not only a total cop out, but it is mind-boggling stupid. Exactly what would Kerry have done that was so terrible to excuse the actions of perhaps the worst President in the history of this nation?

So, it appears John McCain will pursue the same foreign policy as George Bush, and pledges not to do anything about the deficit except talk it down. But Hillary Clinton is so unlikable! And Barak Obama's name sounds like Osama! Plus, he doesn't have McCain's experience (hey, look at George Bush, he did TERRIBLE and had no experience...). We don't need an empty suit again, so we really have no choice but to elect a guy who will follow in George Bush's shoes, and policies. The other guy, ya know, would have been worse......

::sigh:: I think Democracy, as a concept, is failing before our very eyes to the cult of personality and the moral equivalence that is the blogosphere and the modern media.